Home/S.D. Florida/ADIDAS AG v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule " A "

ADIDAS AG v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule " A "

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 29, 2024
Docket0:23-cv-61085
StatusUnknown

This text of ADIDAS AG v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule " A " (ADIDAS AG v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule " A ") is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ADIDAS AG v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule " A ", (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

ADIDAS AG, and others, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-61085-Civ-Scola ) The Individuals, Business Entities, ) And Unincorporated Associations ) Identified on Schedule A, Defendants. )

Order Adopting Report and Recommendations and Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendants

The Court referred Plaintiffs adidas AG, adidas International Marketing B.V., and adidas America, Inc.’s motion for final default judgment (ECF No. 45) to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a report and recommendations. Judge Goodman issued his report, recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiffs’ motion. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 47.) None of the parties has objected and the time to do so has passed. Despite the lack of objections, the Court has nonetheless made a de novo review of the report, finds it cogent and compelling, and adopts it in its entirety (ECF No. 47). The Court thus grants the Plaintiffs’ motion for final default judgment (ECF No. 45), awarding damages and entering injunctive relief as set forth below. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiffs adidas AG, adidas International Marketing B.V., and adidas America, Inc., and against the Defendants, the individuals, business entities, or unincorporated associations identified on Schedule “A” attached hereto (collectively “Defendants”), on all counts of the Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Jurisdiction This Judgment is subject to the jurisdictional constraints of the Lanham Act. See Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952); Int’l Café, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Café Int’l (U.S.A.), Inc., 252 F.3d 1274, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2001). 2. Permanent Injunctive Relief: The Court adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendation that the Court permanently restrain and enjoin the Defendants and their officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them from: a. manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, advertising, or promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell counterfeit and infringing goods bearing and/or using the Plaintiffs’ trademarks identified in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint (the “adidas Marks”); b. using the adidas Marks in connection with the sale of any unauthorized goods; c. using any logo, and/or layout which may be calculated to falsely advertise the services or products of the Defendants as being sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any way associated with the Plaintiffs; d. falsely representing themselves as being connected with the Plaintiffs, through sponsorship or association; e. engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause members of the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or services of the Defendants are in any way endorsed by, approved by, and/or associated with the Plaintiffs; f. using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the adidas Marks in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any goods sold by the Defendants; g. affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any goods, a false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending to falsely describe or represent goods offered for sale or sold by the Defendants as being those of the Plaintiffs or in any way endorsed by the Plaintiffs and from offering such goods in commerce; h. otherwise unfairly competing with the Plaintiffs; i. using the adidas Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks, on e- commerce marketplace websites, within domain name extensions, metatags or other markers within website source code, from use on any webpage (including as the title of any web page), from any advertising links to other websites, from search engines’ databases or cache memory, and from any other form of use of such terms which are visible to a computer user or serves to direct computer searches to Internet based e-commerce stores, seller identities, private messaging accounts, and/or Internet businesses registered by, owned, or operated by the Defendants; and j. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth above. 3. Additional Equitable Relief: The Court also adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendation that the Court award the Plaintiffs the following equitable relief:

a. Upon Plaintiffs’ request, any Internet marketplace website operators and/or administrators for the e-commerce stores operating under the seller names identified on Schedule “A” (“E-commerce Store Names”), shall permanently remove any and all listings and associated images of goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and/or infringements of the adidas Marks via the e-commerce stores operating under the E- commerce Store Names, and any other listings and images of goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and/or infringements of the adidas Marks associated with or linked to the same sellers or linked to any other alias seller identification names, e-commerce stores, or user names being used and/or controlled by Defendants to promote, offer for sale and/or sell goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and/or infringements of the adidas Marks; and b. Upon Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants and any Internet marketplace operators and/or administrators, who are in possession, custody, or control of Defendants’ goods bearing and/or using one or more of the adidas Marks, shall permanently cease fulfillment of and sequester those goods, and surrender those goods to Plaintiffs. 4. Statutory damages: The Court adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendation that the Court award the Plaintiffs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), $100,000.00 against each Defendant, for which let execution issue, based upon Judge Goodman’s finding that each Defendant infringed at least one trademark on one type of good. The Court has considered both the willfulness of each Defendant’s conduct and the deterrent value of the award imposed, and the award falls within the permissible statutory range under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). 5. Restrained Funds: All funds currently restrained or held on account for all the Defendants by all financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms, including, but not limited to, PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Amazon Payments, Inc. (“Amazon”), Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited, which operates the AliExpress.com platform (“AliExpress”), Zhejiang Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. (“Ant Financial Services”), AliPay (China) Internet Technology Co. Ltd., Alipay.com Co., Ltd., and Alipay Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited (collectively, “Alipay”), Worldpay US, Inc. (“Worldpay”), Dunhuang Group which operates the DHgate.com and DHPay.com platforms, Camel FinTech Inc, eBay Commerce, Inc. (“eBay”), and their related companies and affiliates, are to be immediately (within five business days) transferred by the previously referred to financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms, and by the Defendants, to the Plaintiffs and/or the Plaintiffs’ counsel in partial satisfaction of the monetary judgment entered herein against each Defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

International Café, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.), Inc.
252 F.3d 1274 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.
344 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ADIDAS AG v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule " A ", Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adidas-ag-v-the-individuals-business-entities-and-unincorporated-flsd-2024.